The second part of the resolution under discussion[28] (B) is devoted to the question of the workers' congress.

On this question the Mensheviks have already written and spoken so much that it would not be amiss to receive a resolution that truly sums up the results, eliminates misunderstandings and discordant interpretations of the idea, a resolution that gives clear and definite directives to the party. It is enough to say that in the latest bibliography of Russian literature on the workers' congress (the pamphlet mentioned above, "On the All-Russian Workers' Congress") up to 15 titles of pamphlets and journals are listed that dealt with this question in a Menshevik manner.

Let us look then at the fruits of all this "discussion."

The first point of the preamble:

"Mass workers' organizations, arising and forming on the basis of professional, local (?) and generally (?) group (??) needs and demands alone, by themselves, without the influence of proletarian social-democratic parties or organizations upon them, have a direct tendency to narrow the intellectual and political horizon of the working masses to the narrow sphere of professional and generally private interests and everyday needs of separate strata or groups of the proletariat."

What kind of mass organizations could form on the basis of group needs—Allah only knows. By "group" one always means something small, diametrically opposite to the masses. The authors of the resolution string words together without thinking about concrete, definite content.

Further, what does this mean: mass organizations on the basis of local needs? What type of organizations is meant here—this remains unclear again. If we are speaking of organizations such as consumer societies, cooperatives, and so forth, then their distinguishing feature consists not at all in their local character. The Mensheviks' love of general phrases, their evasion of concrete exposition of the question—this is a purely intelligentsia trait. It is fundamentally alien to the proletariat and harmful from the point of view of the proletariat.

According to the literal meaning of the words "mass workers' organizations on the basis of local needs and demands," they include soviets of workers' deputies. This is a very well-known type of mass workers' organization in Russia during the revolutionary epoch. One can say with certainty that scarcely an article on the workers' congress and on mass workers' organizations in general omits reference to this type of organization. The resolution—as if in mockery of the demands for precise and concrete exposition of definite thoughts and slogans—says not a word about soviets of workers' deputies, not a word about soviets of workers' delegates, and so on.

The result is that we have been presented with some vague criticism of some local mass organizations, without at all touching upon the question of their positive significance, the conditions of their activity, and so forth.

Furthermore, however you correct piecemeal this monstrously clumsy first point of the preamble, there remains in it a general, fundamental incorrectness. "Without the influence of proletarian social-democratic parties," not only professional organizations, not only local ones, not only group ones, but even mass non-local political organizations "have a tendency to narrow the horizon of the workers."

The first point of the preamble is supposed, according to the authors' intention, to explain the transition to the "All-Russian workers' congress": they say, local, professional, and other organizations narrow the horizon, but the All-Russian workers' congress, etc. However, logic completely abandons these respected "literati and practitioners," for the influence or absence of influence of social democracy is possible in both cases! Instead of a contrast, confusion resulted…

The second point of the preamble:

"The thought of convening an All-Russian workers' congress, which has met with sympathy in workers' circles, for the purpose of laying the foundation there for the political unification of Russian workers, will introduce a unifying principle into the organizational construction of the workers' masses and will place before them in the foreground the general interests of the working class and its tasks in the contemporary Russian revolution."

First, is it true that the notorious "thought" met with sympathy in workers' circles? Point 5 of the preamble of that same resolution states: "the aspiration of the workers themselves for its (the workers' congress) convening has not yet manifested itself in any serious practical steps on their part for its preparation."

Here truth has been inadvertently spoken. There is already a heap of intelligentsia writings about the workers' congress and no serious practical steps from the workers themselves. The attempt to palm off intelligentsia invention on the workers does not succeed.

Further. What is a workers' congress? Its purpose is to "lay the foundation for the political unification of Russian workers."

So, the RSDLP has not yet laid such a foundation, neither the Rostov demonstration of 1902[80] nor the summer strikes of 1903[81] nor January 9, 1905, nor the October strike of 1905 laid it! Until now there was history, but now there is no more! The "foundation" was laid only by the fact that Axelrod and Company invented the workers' congress… This is incomparable.

What does "political" unification of workers mean? If the authors have not invented special new terminology for this resolution, then this means unification around a definite political program and tactics. What precisely?? Do our intelligentsia really not know that throughout the world there are and have been political unifications of workers under the banner of bourgeois politics? Or does this not apply to holy Russia? In holy Russia is every political unification of workers thereby already a social-democratic unification?

The poor authors of the resolution became so hopelessly entangled because they did not dare directly express the thought that actually lies at the basis of the workers' congress and has long since been expressed by more sincere or younger and more ardent supporters of it. This thought consists in the fact that the workers' congress should be a non-partisan workers' congress. Indeed, would it be worth speaking seriously of a partisan workers' congress??

But our Mensheviks were afraid to say the truth directly and openly: "non-partisan political unification of workers"…

The conclusion of the point: the thought of convening the congress "will introduce a unifying principle into the organizational construction of the workers' masses, will place before them in the foreground the general interests of the working class and its tasks…". First organizational construction, and then tasks, i.e., program and tactics! Should it not be reasoned the other way around, comrade "literati and practitioners"? Think about it: can one unify organizational construction if understanding of the interests and tasks of the class is not unified? Having thought it over, you will convince yourselves that one cannot.

And various parties understand the general interests of the working class and its tasks in the contemporary revolution differently. These tasks are understood differently even within a unified RSDLP by the Mensheviks, supporters of Trotsky, and Bolsheviks. Think about it, comrades: can these disagreements fail to be reflected at the workers' congress? fail to emerge there? fail to become complicated by disagreements with anarchists, Socialist Revolutionaries, Laborites, and so on, and so forth? Can the "thought of convening a workers' congress" or the convening of it eliminate these disagreements??

And so it turns out that the promise of the authors of the resolution: "the thought of convening the congress will introduce a unifying principle, etc." is either the innocent daydream of a very young intelligentsia member captivated by the last book he read, or demagoguery, i.e., the seduction of the masses with an unfulfillable promise.

No, comrades. What unifies is real struggle. What unifies is the development of parties, their prolonged parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggle, what unifies is the general strike, and so on. But through the experiment of convening a non-partisan congress, one will not introduce real unification, will not establish unity in understanding of "interests and tasks."

Of course, one can say: the struggle of various parties at the workers' congress will lead to a wider arena for the activity of social democracy and to its victory. If you view the workers' congress in this way, then this must be said directly, without promising rivers of milk and banks of kissel regarding the "unifying principle." Without saying this directly, you risk having workers, confused and blinded by these promises, come to the congress for the unification of politics, see in reality enormous and irreconcilable disagreements in politics, see the impossibility of the immediate unification of Socialist Revolutionaries, social democrats, and so on, and leave disappointed, leave with curses directed at the intelligentsia that deceived them, directed at "politics" in general, at socialism in general. The inevitable fruit of such disappointment will be a cry: down with politics! down with socialism! they divide rather than unify the workers! Some primitive forms of pure trade-unionism or naive syndicalism will be strengthened thereby.

Of course, social democracy will ultimately conquer all, will endure all trials, will rally all workers. But is this an argument in favor of the politics of adventurism?

The third point of the preamble:

"by introducing into the scattered organizational attempts of socially-active (he exaggerates it "for the sake of importance"!) masses of the proletariat such a unifying concrete purpose as the convening of a general workers' congress (already not All-Russian but general! i.e., all-party or non-partisan? Do not be afraid, comrades!), propaganda and agitation in favor of its convening will in turn give a powerful impetus to the aspiration of these strata for self-organization (i.e., this means without the influence of social democracy, because then it will not be self-organization?) and will raise their activity in this direction."

This is called sending one from Pontius to Pilate. Point 2: the workers' congress will introduce a unifying principle. Point 3: unification around the concrete purpose of the workers' congress will give an impetus to self-organization. What is self-organization for? For the workers' congress. What is the workers' congress for? For self-organization. Why literary resolutions against the dominion of intelligentsia? For the self-gratification of intelligentsia members.

Point 4:

"In view of the growing popularity among workers' circles of the thought about the workers' congress, a passive and especially hostile attitude on the part of parties (?? a misprint? the social-democratic party?) toward attempts to carry it out in practice would open a wide field for unprincipled adventurers to push workers onto a false path, and would throw them into the embrace of various demagogues."

An extremely angry point. Its content is angry confusion. They scold someone without knowing well whom, and so they shoot at their own.

I take the latest (V) issue of "Otgoloski."[82] E. Charsky writes against Yu. Larin: Yu. Larin "suddenly opens up an organizational panacea"… "unexpected prescription"… "confusion"… "Yu. Larin does not notice that he proposes 'consciously' to cement spontaneous tendencies of the revolution, directly hostile to the cause of class consolidation of the workers' masses. And all this is done in the interest of the workers' congress"… "In any case, before us is soil extremely favorable for all sorts of 'land demagogy'… Conclusions of the bewildered thought of comrade Larin."

I think that's enough? Larin is accused by the Mensheviks both of demagoguery and of adventurism, for prescription, panacea, and other compliments speak precisely of adventurism.

It turns out that they aimed at one person but hit another! Truly, "His own knew him not." Take further into account that if Larin for the authors of the resolution falls into the adventurists and demagogues, then El and Company go further than Larin. El directly writes ("All-Russian Workers' Congress," M. 1907), that there are two currents on the question of the workers' congress, that they, the Moscow Mensheviks, do not agree either with the "Petersburgers" (p. 10) or with Larin. The "Petersburgers" want only a congress of the workers' vanguard, and that is simply a "variation of a party congress" (pp. 10–11). Larin "is considered in Petersburg a heretic and an accommodator" (p. 10). Larin wants an "All-Russian workers' party." The Muscovites want an All-Russian workers' union.

The question arises: if Larin was so thoroughly "done in" in "Otgoloski," then where should one place El, Akhmet Ts., Arkhangelsky, Solomin, and Company? It turns out that both Larin and the Muscovites fall under the angry fourth point!

But if you are angry, dear comrades, and reprove in your resolution the "false path," then you are obliged at least to say where the true path is. Otherwise your angry confusion becomes altogether ridiculous. And yet you, rejecting both the "All-Russian workers' union" and the "All-Russian workers' party," do not say a single word about what kind of practical purpose you want the workers' congress for!

Demagogues and adventurers are capable of taking up the workers' congress for false purposes. Therefore we, the social democrats, should relate sympathetically to the workers' congress, without pointing this congress toward any purposes… Upon my word, the Menshevik resolution is a real collection of all manner of absurdities.

Point 5:

"on the other hand, questions concerning the tasks of the workers' congress, the paths and means of its preparation have been very little clarified in social-democratic circles (well, they have been clarified to such an extent that both Larin and the Muscovites have indicated the tasks of the congress, the paths and means clearly! There is no use hiding your head under your wing, comrades "Petersburgers." This will not help the ducklings hatched by Axelrod move from the puddle to dry land!), that the aspiration of the workers themselves for its convening has not yet manifested itself in any serious practical steps on their part for its preparation, and that the congress will be a real, not an apparent, expression of the collective will of the conscious strata of the proletariat and will serve the cause of its class unification only if its convening is prepared by their own organized independent activity with the intensive planful assistance of the party."

This is called: began in good health, ended in requiem. Scarcely had Larin and the young Muscovites manifested their "independent activity," when the Petersburgers already shout at them: wait! you are not yet the expression of collective will! you have not yet clarified sufficiently! the convening (of a non-partisan) congress is not yet prepared with the intensive assistance of the party!

Poor comrades El, Akhmet Ts., and Company! They were about to wave their hands so merrily, with such engaging youthful zeal; they published entire two collections of articles on the workers' congress, analyzed the question from all sides, clarified both its "general political" significance and its organizational significance, its relation to the Duma, its relation to the party, its relation to "petty-bourgeois elements," and suddenly, what a turn with the help of Axelrod!

We fear that if until now only Larin "rebelled" (remember: "heretic and accommodator") against official Menshevism,[29] now this rebellion will turn into an uprising… Axelrod promised independent activity and a truly workers' congress against the dominion of intelligentsia, and now the "Petersburg" literati decide and explain what this independent activity must mean… with the permission of that same reviled "intelligentsia" party!

It is no wonder that the conclusions from such a preamble turn out to be downright comic:

"Proceeding from all these considerations, the congress of the RSDLP proposes to comrade workers and intelligentsia (really? how gracious on the part of fighters against the "dominion" of intelligentsia!) to undertake (but not in Larin's way and not in Akhmet's way!) all-sided discussion of questions relating to the program and tasks of the workers' congress, to propagandist, agitational, and organizational work for its preparation, and to the paths and means of its convening.

The party congress considers at the same time it to be the duty of party institutions to render every support to propagandist, agitational, and organizational attempts directed toward the preparation of the workers' congress; and it recognizes as a matter of principle impermissible the hostile agitation against attempts of this sort, since it strives to preserve and strengthen the obsolete party regime in Russian social democracy, which has already become incompatible neither with the contemporary level of development and demands of the proletarian elements grouping themselves within and around it, nor with the demands of the revolution."

Well, how not to call this angry confusion? How not to laugh at such a resolution?

The party congress forbids defending the obsolete party regime, which this very congress itself affirms!

The party congress proposes no reforms of the obsolete regime, even the notorious "workers' congress" (for the purposes of some incomprehensible "political unification") it postpones, and at the same time obliges one to support… "attempts"!

This is genuine impotent intelligentsia grumbling: I am dissatisfied with the contemporary obsolete party regime, I do not want to preserve and strengthen it! — Very good. If you do not want to preserve it, propose definite changes, we will discuss them gladly. Say, if you please, what kind of workers' congress would you like? — That has not yet been clarified… the aspiration has not yet manifested itself… the convening has not been prepared. It is necessary to undertake discussion. — Very good. Writing resolutions about undertaking discussion is really not worth the effort, dear comrades, for we have been discussing already for a long time. But a workers' party is not a club for intelligentsia "discussions," but a fighting proletarian organization. Discussion is discussion, but one must live and act. In what kind of party organization is it permitted to live and act? in the old one? — Do not dare defend the obsolete old organization, do not dare preserve and strengthen it! — Very good, and so on.

The tale of the white bull. An intelligentsia member is being capricious and angry at his own indecisiveness, at his own confusion.

Such is the final word of "official Menshevism."

Going round and round, the Menshevik literati successfully avoided the ripened question posed both in life and in literature: an independent social-democratic workers' party or its replacement (variant: its subordination) by a non-partisan political organization of the proletariat?

Our Bolshevik resolution directly and definitively decides this question, openly posing it. Evasion here is useless, whether the evasion proceeds from confusion or from benevolent "conciliationism." Evasion is useless, for the replacement has been proposed and work for such replacement is underway. The intelligentsia hens of Menshevism have hatched ducklings. The ducklings have swum. The hens must choose: on water or on dry land? The answer they give (this answer can be conveyed with sufficient accuracy by the words: neither on water nor on dry land, but in the mud), is not an answer but a postponement, a delay.

Axelrod could not hold back Larin. Larin could not hold back El, Akhmet Ts., and Company. This last company cannot hold back anarcho-syndicalists.

On water or on dry land, gentlemen?

We want to go on dry land. We predict to you that the more zealously, the more resolutely you plunge into the mud, the sooner you will return to dry land.

"To expand and strengthen the influence of social democracy on the broad masses of the proletariat" we propose not the replacement of social democracy by a "workers' party" of a non-partisan type, not an "All-Russian workers' union" standing above the party, not a workers' congress for unknown purposes, but something simple, modest, free from all scheming: it is necessary, "on the one hand, to intensify work on organizing professional unions, social-democratic propaganda and agitation within them, and on the other hand, to draw more and more broad strata of the working class into participation in all kinds of party organizations" (the final point of the Bolshevik resolution).

To jaded intelligentsia this seems too "obsolete," too dull. Let them scheme: we will follow the workers and at the "workers' congress" (if it materializes) will show there in practice the correctness of our predictions and… and we will return with disappointed (more precisely: with those disappointed in certain intelligentsia leaders) workers to the "obsolete" work in professional unions and in party organizations of all kinds.

How is the "workers'-congress" current in our party explained? We can here only briefly outline three main, in our view, causes: 1) intelligentsia-philistine weariness with the revolution; 2) the peculiarity of Russian social-democratic opportunism, historically developing in the direction of subordinating the "purely workers'" movement to the influence of the bourgeoisie; 3) undigested traditions of the October revolution in Russia.

Ad 1) Among part of the workers'-congress advocates, weariness with the revolution is evident and the desire at all costs to legalize the party, to throw out any republic, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. A legal workers' congress is a convenient means for this. Hence (partly also from the second cause) the sympathy of the Liquidationists, "headless"-Bernsteinists (from "Tovarisch," etc.) and Cadets toward such a congress.

Ad 2) Take the first historical form of Russian social-democratic opportunism. The beginning of the mass workers' movement (the second half of the 1890s) produced this opportunism in the form of "economism" and Struvism.[83] The connection between the two was more than once clarified at that time both by Plekhanov and Axelrod and all the old Iskrists.[84] The famous Prokopovich-Kuskova "Credo"[31] (1899–1900) expressed this connection vividly: let the intelligentsia and liberals wage political struggle, while the workers wage economic struggle. A political workers' party is the invention of a revolutionary intelligentsia member.

In this classical "Credo" the historical, class meaning of the intelligentsia's infatuation with the "purely workers'" movement is brightly expressed. This meaning is the subordination of the working class (in the name of "purely workers'" tasks) to bourgeois politics and ideology. The intelligentsia's "infatuation" expressed capitalist tendencies toward the subordination of underdeveloped workers to liberals.

Now, at a higher stage of development, we see the very same thing. Blocs with the Cadets, generally the politics of supporting the Cadets—and a non-partisan workers' congress, these are two sides of one coin, connected the same way as liberalism and the purely workers' movement in the "Credo." In reality the non-partisan workers' congress expresses the same capitalist tendency toward the weakening of the class independence of the proletariat and its subordination to the bourgeoisie. This tendency appears brightly in the plans for replacing social democracy with a non-partisan workers' organization or subordinating it to the latter.

Hence—the sympathy of the Liquidationists, the "headless" ones, the Socialist Revolutionaries, and so forth for the idea of the "workers' congress."

Ad 3) The Russian bourgeois revolution created peculiar mass organizations of the proletariat, unlike the usual European ones (professional unions and the social-democratic party). These are the soviets of workers' deputies.

By schematically developing such institutions into a system (as Trotsky did) or by sympathizing in general with the revolutionary upsurge of the proletariat and becoming enamored with the "fashionable" phrase of "revolutionary syndicalism" (as some Moscow workers'-congress advocates do), it is easy to arrive, not by an opportunist but by a revolutionary path, at the idea of the workers' congress.

But this is an uncritical attitude toward the great and glorious revolutionary tradition.

In reality, the soviets of workers' deputies and similar institutions were organs of insurrection. Their strength and success depended entirely upon the strength and success of the insurrection. Their emergence was only then not a comedy but a feat of the proletariat, when the insurrection was rising. Upon a new upsurge of struggle, upon the transition of the struggle to this phase, such institutions are inevitably and desirably necessary, of course. But their historical development should consist not in the schematic continuation of local soviets of workers' deputies up to an All-Russian workers' congress, but in the transformation of embryonic organs of revolutionary power (precisely such organs were the soviets of workers' deputies) into central organs of victorious revolutionary power, into a revolutionary provisional government. Soviets of workers' deputies and their unification are necessary for the victory of the insurrection. A victorious insurrection inevitably creates different organs.

Russian social democracy, of course, should not renounce participation in the workers' congress, for the development of the revolution proceeds by an extremely zigzag path and can bring about the most varied and peculiar situations. But it is one thing to carefully study various conditions of the now rising, now falling revolution, to strive to utilize them—and quite another thing to engage in confused or anti-social-democratic scheming.

Written in April 1907.

Published in April 1907 in collection II, "Questions of Tactics." St. Petersburg, published by "Novaya Duma."
Signature: N. Lenin

Printed from the text of the collection